mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Sentry: Learning to Recover from LLM Agent Failures at Test Time

arXiv 2610.02994 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent skill learning and evolution

Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents often fail mid-task due to invalid tool calls, repeated actions, or poorly grounded reasoning, and learning from these failures is a path to reliability. We find that how failure knowledge reaches the agent matters as much as what it contains. Failure lessons are conditional: kept in the agent's context, they misfire when their failure is absent, and removing them from an evolving playbook improves performance. Runtime interventions, in contrast, act only when a failure occurs but do not learn from their repairs. We argue that failure knowledge is conditional knowledge and should be conditionally exposed, and instantiate this principle in Sentry, a failure-management layer that runs alongside the agent. When Sentry detects a failure, it retrieves matching lessons from an external playbook to guide recovery, verifies without access to task rewards whether the agent recovered, and stores a new lesson only if it did; the full playbook never enters the agent's context. Across multiple agentic benchmarks, Sentry outperforms the strongest runtime-intervention baseline on every benchmark, by 37% on average, and the strongest context-evolution baseline by 39% on the two benchmarks where both are evaluated; combining Sentry with context evolution yields further gains. Learned lessons transfer to held-out tasks, and controlled experiments show that exposing the full playbook to the agent lowers performance even when relevant lessons remain available on demand.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent skill learning and evolution, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Loud Failures, Quiet Failures: Fault Detection and Recovery in Tool-Using Language Model Agents
  2. 2026Agent Skills Can Be Harmful: An Empirical Study of Skill-Induced Failures in LLM Agents
  3. 2026Same Winners, Different Success Rates: Evaluating How LLM Agents Recover from Failures
  4. 2025Conditional Multi-Stage Failure Recovery for Embodied Agents
  5. 2025ReflexGrad: Within-Episode Failure Recovery in LLM Agents via Progress-Gated Dual-Process Routing
  6. 2026DAAF: From Failure Localization to Editable System Assets in LLM Agents
  7. 2026Accurate Failure Prediction in Agents Does Not Imply Effective Failure Prevention
  8. 2026ANNEAL: Adapting LLM Agents via Governed Symbolic Patch Learning